Even if you believe you are encountering a threat, your first response should not be to shoot at it. That’s just basic How to Be a Human 101.
@ucbalumnus : Regarding your post #55 = very helpful. Should have been presented by defense attorneys at trial.
@mom2twogirls : You are correct that the trial judge allowed it as a defense for the jury to consider.
Important point: The trial judge did not have to allow the Castle Doctrine in as a defense included in the jury instructions. That is why Amber Guyger had to take the stand.
Appeals of criminal convictions are very difficult. Even with eyewitnesses later recanting their testimony, DNA evidence which excludes the convicted, & later confessions to the crime by another do not always result in overturned convictions–even in death penalty cases.
Jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and juror prejudice have all been both successful & unsuccessful grounds when asserted on appeal.
The worst thing that the Defendant, Amber Guyger, could do at this stage is to use her trial attorneys as her appellate attorneys.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Keep in mind this is not a debate site. Please don’t reiterate your viewpoint multiple times.
What I understand about the Texas Castle doctrine that makes it different from similar laws in other states is that there is no legal mandate to retreat or attempt “less lethal” interventions.
I don’t know the nuances of the law as it relates to entering your home from the outside to find an intruder inside. I personally knew a woman who entered her home and interrupted a burglar. She attempted to retreat. He beat her to death. It was a tragically gruesome scene of a young, very fit woman who fought very hard for her life.I wish she had been in possession of a weapon.
Her case is not the same as this case, not by a long shot. The local news is spinning it thus:
Castle Doctrine or not, AG was a trained police officer who had the means to retreat and call for back up. She had a taser and probably pepper spray within reach. She is being held to a higher standard than the average Joe who believes he has entered his home and finds a burglar- because of her training.
I don’t know that I agree that this woman should be treated exactly as someone who deliberately goes out to kill a person, but I don’t think that distinction is present in the law as written.
Finally, I don’t understand any point of view which doesn’t believe AG THOUGHT she was in her own apartment. To hold that point of view is to believe she deliberately went to this man’s apartment, entered it and murdered him in cold blood for unknown reasons-he was noisy? Really??? She is going to risk her freedom, her reputation, her career to stop noise? That seems just ridiculously unlikely.
Even though she might have truly believed she was at home, I personally don’t believe she should have been acquitted of all manner of crimes. This person was doing nothing wrong and ended up dead when he shouldn’t have. The actions of AG were negligent in the extreme. Some kind of serious consequences were called for. I’m just not comfortable with her crime being put in the same category as a deliberate murder. But the law apparently doesn’t allow for that distinction, so here it is.
@Nrdsb4 : Great points.
Jury had the option to convict the police officer defendant of manslaughter, but chose not to do so. Suggests that the jury did not believe Amber Guyger’s testimony.
I don’t think the prosecution ever suggested that AG knew she wasn’t in her apartment. They said she disregarded clues that a reasonable person would have picked up on. I think the jury believes that she thought she was in her own apartment. They felt that she SHOULD have known she was not in her own apartment and that she had no business using lethal force. She admitted she meant to kill him.
@Nrdsb4 : Thank you. Right on point.
Someone asked about Capital murder charges in Texas:
https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/capital-murder-texas-understanding-crimes-penalties/
Also from the above noted link.
I don’t remember some of the details from earlier, namely
- Did she go anywhere between getting off shift and coming home, and if so was that place a bar?
- When was she tested for drugs and alcohol? Didn't they let her go for several days?
As to not having contact with the victim, I seem to recall that she had lodged several noise complaints against him. (Not that I think that would be a motive for murder.)
IMPORTANT: Apparently the jury is currently in deliberations to decide Amber Guyger’s sentence. (According to CBS national news.) I wonder if the jury just recommends a sentence to the trial court judge, or if the jury determines the actual sentence in Texas state courts.
After the verdict, the court went right into the sentencing phase.
The Defendant, Amber Guyger, faces a sentence of from 5 years to 99 years.
Texas law governs the Texas state court system. If this were in Federal court for a federal criminal offense, a separate hearing date would be set for the sentencing hearing. Both sides could present additional evidence & the federal government would prepare its own pre-sentence report & make recommendations to the trial judge (US District Court Judge) who would decide the sentence. But this case is not in federal court, so we may know Amber Guyger’s sentence within the hour.
Most appellate timelines run from sentencing. Typically, appeals must be filed within 30 days of sentencing. The trial lasted one week-- 5 or 7 days, not sure–but appellate attorneys need the trial transcripts before drafting appellate briefs.
No one but AG and God knows why she did it/how it happened. But her explanation is not believable. At all.
The jury was allowed to consider the castle doctrine, but they needed to see if it applied; they needed to see if the facts of the case, as they determined them, matched the requirements of the castle doctrine.
But even if you assume that the apartment was Guyger’s castle, in order for the castle doctrine to apply, either Jean would have had to have entered the apartment when Guyger was already there, or he would have had to have been committing robbery or another violent crime. Surprising a burglar (someone attempting to steal things from the apartment) would not be enough; Jean would have had to have been robbing-- threatening Guyger physically as he stole things.
But Jean did not enter the apartment while Guyger was already there, and he was not threatening Guyger physically. So the castle doctrine wouldn’t have applied even if the killing happened in her apartment.
ABC News just stated that the Trial Court Judge threw a surprise curve ball at the prosecution by allowing the Castle Doctrine defense to be included in jury instructions.
ABC News stated that sentencing phase–which has begun–could last for days.
Also, ABC News reported that racially insensitive text messages by Amber Guyger were entered into evidence (probably during the sentencing phase, although not clear).
The victim was sitting on his couch eating ice cream & watching TV in his own apartment.
Maybe something as simple as a chain lock on the door could have prevented this killing. Or a pet dog. Or a door decoration, or a different color of paint on the door by floor as an added precaution.
This was a extremeley clean cut, hard working, PwC accountant eating ice cream on his own couch in his own apartment.
What difference does it make whether the shooter is sentenced to 15 years, 20 years, 30 years or 99 years ? The length of the sentence is unlikely to have any deterrent effect on others (because police officers just don’t go around shooting their neighbors). And Amber Guyger will never be permitted to own a weapon or work as a police officer. And nothing will bring back the victim.
A sentence of 20 years or a bit more or less is necessary, in my opinion, to show the public that police officers are not above the law.
This case sickens me. A completely innocent man killed in his own apartment for nothing.
Install chain locks & use them. Get a dog or two. Make apartment complexs use a different color for doors on each floor. Different carpeting in the halls as well.
FWIW, I’m betting that she gets a sentence on the shorter end of the spectrum, perhaps even the minimum. I think this looks like what I would call negligent homicide, rather than deliberate, malicious murder. (NOT using any of these terms legally.)
The jury is deciding the sentence or, at least, a recommended sentence based on the trial testimony & evidence, and based on additional testimony & evidence entered after the verdict was read during the sentencing phase.
Any sentence below 10 or 12 years may result in civil unrest. Maybe something in the range of 12 to 20 years ?
I don’t see that this is negligent homicide. She intended to kill him, she pulled out her gun, shot to kill, and she did kill him. But it wasn’t premeditated, nor do I think it was malicious. I too think a sentence on the low side of sentencing guidelines would be appropriate.
@Publisher. It is my understanding that in Texas the defendant has a right to have the jury determine ( not just recommend ) a sentence. I believe there are a half dozen or so other states with similar procedures.
Okay, I’m not saying this should be what she is judged for, but c’mon, don’t equate a bad ethical choice with issues of identity people are born with, like race or orientation. These are materially different categorizations.
Could this be the basis of a civil suit against the DPD by the victim’s family?